On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Adam Langley <a...@imperialviolet.org> > wrote: > >> If it wants to be a technical document, then the draft includes two very >> different designs with a note saying that one will be chosen at some point. >> So which are we talking about adopting? While drafts evolve during the WG >> process, there's a big gap between the two ideas and I'd support one but >> not the other. >> > > The tunneling mechanism described in Section 4.1 seems useful (at least to > me) for more things than encrypted SNI, such as being able to use different > TLS extensions for the frontend load balancer versus a backend service, > while still eventually negotiating an end-to-end encrypted session with the > backend service. > > I wonder if the draft should be framed around the TLS-in-TLS tunneling > mechanism, with encrypted SNI as a potential use case. > But my point is that, in this situation, I would expect there to be two competing drafts—one for each proposal. The WG would then only adopt one of them. Cheers AGL -- Adam Langley a...@imperialviolet.org https://www.imperialviolet.org
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
